About this index & how it's been checked

The Aging Vulnerability Index (AVI) is this platform's own construction, modeled on the CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index methodology but not a CDC product and not independently validated. It combines Census ACS data on the population 65 and older — demographic aging pressure, economic precarity, health/disability/isolation, and housing/transportation burden — into a single percentile ranking of U.S. counties. The underlying inputs are official Census data; the index construction and weighting are this platform's own.

Reference-county check

A face-validity check against real counties with well-documented age profiles — the same method used to calibrate this platform's seasonal-community threshold. Higher percentile = more aging-vulnerable.

  • ✓ Sumter County, FL — 79.8th percentile (expected HIGH, The Villages — often cited as the oldest-median-age U.S. county)
  • ✓ Charlotte County, FL — 90.8th percentile (expected HIGH, Retirement destination)
  • ✓ Citrus County, FL — 88.1th percentile (expected HIGH, Retirement destination)
  • ✓ Highlands County, FL — 95.9th percentile (expected HIGH, Retirement destination)
  • ✓ Brazos County, TX — 17.0th percentile (expected LOW, Texas A&M)
  • ✓ Story County, IA — 8.9th percentile (expected LOW, Iowa State)
  • ✓ Whitman County, WA — 10.3th percentile (expected LOW, Washington State University)
  • ✓ Tompkins County, NY — 7.6th percentile (expected LOW, Cornell)

Highest / lowest AVI by county population

Under 50,000

Highest
  1. Catron County, NM — 100.0th pctile (pop. 3,743)
  2. De Baca County, NM — 99.9th pctile (pop. 1,576)
  3. Ozark County, MO — 99.8th pctile (pop. 8,873)
  4. Scott County, VA — 99.6th pctile (pop. 21,479)
  5. Harney County, OR — 99.6th pctile (pop. 7,499)
Lowest
  1. Martin County, TX — 0.0th pctile (pop. 5,218)
  2. Jim Hogg County, TX — 0.1th pctile (pop. 4,727)
  3. Haskell County, KS — 0.1th pctile (pop. 3,641)
  4. Hanson County, SD — 0.1th pctile (pop. 3,472)
  5. Trousdale County, TN — 0.2th pctile (pop. 11,957)

50,000-99,999

Highest
  1. Nye County, NV — 96.7th pctile (pop. 54,344)
  2. Gila County, AZ — 96.7th pctile (pop. 53,795)
  3. Raleigh County, WV — 96.0th pctile (pop. 73,195)
  4. Wilkes County, NC — 95.6th pctile (pop. 65,935)
  5. Pittsylvania County, VA — 94.0th pctile (pop. 59,856)
Lowest
  1. Oldham County, KY — 0.0th pctile (pop. 69,257)
  2. Eagle County, CO — 0.2th pctile (pop. 55,135)
  3. Lincoln County, SD — 0.5th pctile (pop. 70,638)
  4. Johnson County, MO — 0.9th pctile (pop. 54,732)
  5. Lafayette County, MS — 1.3th pctile (pop. 58,327)

100,000-299,999

Highest
  1. Highlands County, FL — 95.9th pctile (pop. 105,702)
  2. Mohave County, AZ — 93.9th pctile (pop. 220,517)
  3. Douglas County, OR — 93.0th pctile (pop. 112,072)
  4. Charlotte County, FL — 90.8th pctile (pop. 201,064)
  5. Indian River County, FL — 90.3th pctile (pop. 166,936)
Lowest
  1. Union County, NC — 0.8th pctile (pop. 250,958)
  2. Scott County, MN — 1.1th pctile (pop. 154,557)
  3. Williamson County, TN — 1.2th pctile (pop. 260,351)
  4. St. Mary's County, MD — 1.3th pctile (pop. 115,126)
  5. Dallas County, IA — 1.5th pctile (pop. 107,968)

300,000 and higher

Highest
  1. Pinellas County, FL — 90.1th pctile (pop. 963,481)
  2. Collier County, FL — 89.9th pctile (pop. 398,291)
  3. Marion County, FL — 87.1th pctile (pop. 400,078)
  4. Lee County, FL — 86.1th pctile (pop. 817,666)
  5. Palm Beach County, FL — 85.0th pctile (pop. 1,533,806)
Lowest
  1. Hamilton County, IN — 0.6th pctile (pop. 365,056)
  2. Prince William Count, VA — 2.1th pctile (pop. 488,880)
  3. Davis County, UT — 2.1th pctile (pop. 370,924)
  4. Douglas County, CO — 2.2th pctile (pop. 377,150)
  5. Loudoun County, VA — 2.4th pctile (pop. 432,998)
Compare
NationallyWithin its state

Montgomery County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
Montgomery County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision
Abington township — 86 (Higher)Ambler borough — 48 (Middle)Bridgeport borough — 12 (Lower)Bryn Athyn borough — 73 (Higher)Cheltenham township — 73 (Higher)Collegeville borough — 63 (Upper-middle)Conshohocken borough — 21 (Lower-middle)Douglass township — 70 (Upper-middle)East Greenville borough — 11 (Lower)East Norriton township — 57 (Middle)Franconia township — 86 (Higher)Green Lane borough — 51 (Middle)Hatboro borough — 18 (Lower)Hatfield borough — 4 (Lower)Hatfield township — 31 (Lower-middle)Horsham township — 26 (Lower-middle)Jenkintown borough — 70 (Upper-middle)Lansdale borough — 42 (Middle)Limerick township — 23 (Lower-middle)Lower Frederick township — 25 (Lower-middle)Lower Gwynedd township — 89 (Higher)Lower Merion township — 71 (Higher)Lower Moreland township — 61 (Upper-middle)Lower Pottsgrove township — 68 (Upper-middle)Lower Providence township — 79 (Higher)Lower Salford township — 39 (Middle)Marlborough township — 32 (Lower-middle)Montgomery township — 51 (Middle)Narberth borough — 7 (Lower)New Hanover township — 12 (Lower)Norristown borough — 32 (Lower-middle)North Wales borough — 34 (Middle)Pennsburg borough — 11 (Lower)Perkiomen township — 12 (Lower)Plymouth township — 69 (Upper-middle)Pottstown borough — 66 (Upper-middle)Red Hill borough — 98 (Higher)Rockledge borough — 58 (Upper-middle)Royersford borough — 26 (Lower-middle)Salford township — 6 (Lower)Schwenksville borough — 58 (Upper-middle)Skippack township — 29 (Lower-middle)Souderton borough — 34 (Middle)Springfield township — 75 (Higher)Telford borough — 22 (Lower-middle)Towamencin township — 80 (Higher)Trappe borough — 10 (Lower)Upper Dublin township — 68 (Upper-middle)Upper Frederick township — 86 (Higher)Upper Gwynedd township — 91 (Higher)Upper Hanover township — 27 (Lower-middle)Upper Merion township — 36 (Middle)Upper Moreland township — 59 (Upper-middle)Upper Pottsgrove township — 20 (Lower)Upper Providence township — 19 (Lower)Upper Salford township — 37 (Middle)West Conshohocken borough — 34 (Middle)West Norriton township — 39 (Middle)West Pottsgrove township — 32 (Lower-middle)Whitemarsh township — 69 (Upper-middle)Whitpain township — 73 (Higher)Worcester township — 54 (Middle)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (4 to 20)Lower-middle (21 to 32)Middle (34 to 57)Upper-middle (58 to 70)Higher (71 to 98)
Each unit is shaded by its Aging Vulnerability Index value and grouped into equal-count bands (quantiles) against the other units shown — lighter = lower, darker = higher. It ranks position among the units in view; it does not grade places, and the ranges shift with which units are shown.
The map is bounded to this parent geography — it shows the selected unit among its own siblings only, the same depth rule the drill-down uses. Shading ranks position on the measure among the units shown; it does not grade places.

Click a county subdivision to see its overall percentile and theme scores.

← Back to county view
Median county subdivision: 40th percentile (among all U.S. county subdivisions).
These county subdivisions span the 4th percentile to the 98th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median7 (11%)
Above the median15 (24%)
Near the median9 (15%)
Below the median19 (31%)
Well below the median12 (19%)
Widest spread across these county subdivisions: Health, Disability & Isolation — this theme most separates the higher- and lower-ranked county subdivisions here.
AVI ranks each county subdivision's position relative to a comparison set; it is not averaged into one number for the area, because percentiles do not average meaningfully. The distribution — median, range, and shape below — is the summary.
Well above the median — 7 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Red Hill borough — 98th percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Upper Gwynedd township — 91st percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lower Gwynedd township — 89th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Franconia township — 86th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Upper Frederick township — 86th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Abington township — 86th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Towamencin township — 80th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Above the median — 15 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Lower Providence township — 79th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Springfield township — 75th percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Whitpain township — 73rd percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cheltenham township — 73rd percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bryn Athyn borough — 73rd percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lower Merion township — 71st percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Douglass township — 70th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Jenkintown borough — 70th percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); below the median on Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Whitemarsh township — 69th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Plymouth township — 69th percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Upper Dublin township — 68th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lower Pottsgrove township — 68th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Pottstown borough — 66th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Collegeville borough — 63rd percentile — Above the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lower Moreland township — 61st percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Near the median — 9 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Upper Moreland township — 59th percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Schwenksville borough — 58th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Rockledge borough — 58th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
East Norriton township — 57th percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Worcester township — 54th percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Green Lane borough — 51st percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Montgomery township — 51st percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ambler borough — 48th percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lansdale borough — 42nd percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Below the median — 19 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Lower Salford township — 39th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
West Norriton township — 39th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Upper Salford township — 37th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Upper Merion township — 36th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Souderton borough — 34th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
North Wales borough — 34th percentile — Below the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
West Conshohocken borough — 34th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
West Pottsgrove township — 32nd percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Norristown borough — 32nd percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Marlborough township — 32nd percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hatfield township — 31st percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Skippack township — 29th percentile — Below the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Upper Hanover township — 27th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Horsham township — 26th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Royersford borough — 26th percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lower Frederick township — 25th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Limerick township — 23rd percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Telford borough — 22nd percentile — Below the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Conshohocken borough — 21st percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Well below the median — 12 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Upper Pottsgrove township — 20th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Upper Providence township — 19th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hatboro borough — 18th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bridgeport borough — 12th percentile — Well below the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Perkiomen township — 12th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
New Hanover township — 12th percentile — Well below the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Pennsburg borough — 11th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
East Greenville borough — 11th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Trappe borough — 10th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Narberth borough — 7th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Salford township — 6th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hatfield borough — 4th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
AVI = a candidate Aging Vulnerability Index, computed by this platform from American Community Survey 2020–2024 5-year estimates, following the same method shape (percentile rank -> theme sum -> re-rank -> overall) as the CDC/ATSDR SVI this platform also recomputes — but AVI itself has no published ground truth to validate against. It is a first-cut, directional design. Percentiles rank each county against all U.S. county subdivisions.
Several of AVI's 12 input signals carry a documented high margin of error at this grain (most notably lack of health insurance, 65+) and are kept in the index with a flag rather than dropped, to preserve variable coverage. A county's flag count (shown per-county above) is a direct measure of how much its rank should be read as directional rather than precise.

Scroll to Top